As eviction-related suicides continue to rise in Spain, protests are becoming more frequent with the public outraged at the governments lack of action to combat social ills. Evictions are a humanitarian concern, the national bank chief has said.

The governor of the Bank of Spain, Luis Maria Linde, said that the increasing number of evictions related to financial woes should be combated through social initiatives. The evictions have driven over 100 people to commit suicide, and mass protests on the issue have become a regular occurrence in Spain.

We must urgently address and social humanitarian issues, this will have to be organized, but we can do it, Linde said, adding that the root cause of the crisis was a lack of information and reliable statistics.

There have been numerous calls in Spain for a modification of mortgage law in order to mitigate evictions and stem a mounting social crisis. One particular concern is legislation that forces those evicted to continue to make mortgage payments even after they have been ejected from their former property. Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy condemned the law for allowing inhuman situations to transpire on a daily basis, but the government has yet to take action on the matter.

Linde broached the issue, saying that it was very delicate. He argued that the most important issue was ensuring that the mortgage system remains stable, as it is one of the cornerstones of the Spanish banking system. Around 500 people are ejected from their homes every day in the crisis-wracked nation, a 30 percent increase over last year, Spanish publication LaTercera said. The report estimates that around 2 million homes across Spain are currently unoccupied.

Homicide not suicide The suicide of 53-year-old Amaia Egaña  who jumped to her death from the fourth floor of her building after she was issued an eviction notice for defaulting on her mortgage payments  sparked outcry across Spain two weeks ago. Thousands of people in the Basque region marched to protest mortgage legislation, chanting slogans such as This isnt suicide, this is homicide, They get the money and we get the dead, and We need to put an end to financial terrorism.

Cases like Egañas are an increasingly common occurrence in a country where unemployment is over 25 percent, and seems likely to keep rising. At the end of October, three suicides driven by the financial downturn reportedly took place in three consecutive days.

A young man threw himself off a bridge in Gran Canaria after losing his job and receiving an eviction notice, while a 53-year-old father kissed his daughter goodbye in Burjassot before jumping from his second-story flat. In the southern province of Granada, 54-year-old Jose Miguel Domingo hanged himself minutes before the bailiffs arrived to evict him from his home.

The growing suicide rate across Spain has sparked mass protests and calls for the immediate reform of mortgage legislation. Since the beginning of this year, over 100 Spaniards have killed themselves over financial woes. Michael Saba

This article is fascinating on many fronts. The obvious is the economic decline of a socialist country, in whose footsteps we follow. This is where it leads, massive unemployment, citizens clammering for the God of Government to take care of them, protests, etc.

Of more serious interest is the requirement that those evicted keep paying, even after eviction, without any apparent means to discharge the obligation. Who benefits? The obvious answer is the owner/landlord, but that is wrong. It is the banker whom the landlord/owner pays.

Why is the banker the one always ultimately protected? Think about what our Fed has done: created money out of nothing, driven interest rates down to zero, allowed banks to move into shadow banking...then protecting them from their loses.

The bankers always win. Those who save, see their savings debased.

Democrats and their Democrat Lite opposition party, here as in Spain, are controlled by one thought, stay in power through reelection, funded by these very same bankers.

There is a war coming, but it will not be between conservatives and Democrats/Democrat Lites.

Always follow the money and ask yourself why were so many of the Founding Fathers adamantly opposed to a national bank.

I don’t think you have a clue. They have to eat losses all the time. Plus bankers don’t force people to borrow money. People will go to great lengths to get the bank’s money and are happy to get it.
If you don’t want to pay back the money, you shouldn’t sign contracts to borrow it.

3
posted on 11/22/2012 5:31:24 AM PST
by AppyPappy
(If you really want to annoy someone, point out something obvious that they are trying hard to ignore)

Things are particularly nasty in Spain, because they have bad and antiquated laws about property.

For example, mortgage obligations are not lost once someone is evicted, so they must pay the rest of their mortgage though homeless; and mortgage debts are *inheritable*, so if your parents had a debt, at their death it becomes your debt.

Regretfully it is you who does not have a clue. Look at the mortgage crisis in our country. Take the time to research how the Fed has forced interest rates down to, in effect, transfer money from savers to banks. Research how the government has guaranteed the bad loans, with your money, to protect whom? The lenders.

Should a person read what he signs, of course. But they don’t and banks know it so they make loans to generate the fees and let the government bail them out. As far as some banks taking losses, do your homework. See who really owns the federal reserve bank, hint: it is private banks. Those banks don’t lose money. How can you lose money when the government prints money, gives it to you for nothing, you get to lend it out charging interest and fees, then let the government bail you out because you are too big to fail.

Take your time, do the research and get back to me in a couple of months. In the meantime, I’ll start posting primers on our banking system to help you, others and myself learn the real truth as to where the power in this country and others lies.

7
posted on 11/22/2012 5:45:02 AM PST
by Founding Father
(The Pedophile moHAMmudd (PBUH---Pigblood be upon him))

Why is the banker the one always ultimately protected? Think about what our Fed has done: created money out of nothing, driven interest rates down to zero, allowed banks to move into shadow banking...then protecting them from their loses.

It's the politicians (both parties) that benefit from the low rates in their borrow-and-spendathon to get more votes from us, the stupid voters. The Fed has no power other than that granted by the politicians. But now they are in a mutual protection agreement. It's amazing how many people think that low rates are rigged but good or a sign of "weak demand" for money. It is neither, low rates hollow out the economy year after year because there's no incentive to put aside money into long term productive investments.

How about posting primers on how people shouldn’t borrow money if they can’t pay it back instead of whacked-out conspiracy theories? If you beg a bank to lend you money and then you decide to break that contract because you want to keep your iPhone over your house, that’s not the bank’s fault.

If the government withheld your tax refund because they didn’t want to pay you, you’d feel yourself ill-used. It’s the same way with banks. We borrowed our way into this problem, Fed or no Fed. The idea that some shadow organization is responsible is just deflection.

10
posted on 11/22/2012 6:23:48 AM PST
by AppyPappy
(If you really want to annoy someone, point out something obvious that they are trying hard to ignore)

Should a person read what he signs, of course. But they dont and banks know it so they make loans to generate the fees and let the government bail them out.

The government is complicit in writing the terms. Nor could anybody reading one of these documents understand the case law implications. In fact, I'd bet NOBODY understands a mortgage document completely these days.

I just singed a HELOC. I was going to write an article about the environmental terms. They include compliance to the terms of letters between bureaucrats. It is a contract so vague and broad as to be effectively unenforceable.

Why is the banker the one always ultimately protected? Think about what our Fed has done: created money out of nothing,

The bankers always win. Those who save, see their savings debased.

Ahh, the paulbot is strong in this one. Next you'll be talking about "globalists" and the Bilderberg Group.

These debt crisis aren't about fiat currency or evil bankers, its almost exclusively about people in democracies voting for a massive social welfare state. The banks and creditors are simply there to meet the borrowing needs. People want to massively deficit spend to pay for these things, and investors are always going to be around to meet the need. This isn't a banker problem, it's a voter problem.

This is little different than a person with a meth addiction. Are the drugs bad? Yes. Are the dealers bad? Yes. But who is ultimately responsible? The user. Blaming "banksters", fiat currency, globalists, etc, is just a convenient excuse - and a lot of that is just silly conspiracy theories.

How about posting primers on how people shouldnt borrow money if they cant pay it back instead of whacked-out conspiracy theories? If you beg a bank to lend you money and then you decide to break that contract because you want to keep your iPhone over your house, thats not the banks fault.

If the government withheld your tax refund because they didnt want to pay you, youd feel yourself ill-used. Its the same way with banks. We borrowed our way into this problem, Fed or no Fed. The idea that some shadow organization is responsible is just deflection.

You see, I agree with everything you wrote. The difference between us is that for you the story ends where you stopped. For me, I continue the inquiry. The fact of the matter is, we, you, me, and other taxpayers, bailed out the lenders. They did not take the hit for making bad loans as they should in a true free market. Instead, the Fed lowered the rates to near zero, to keep many of the marginal loans viable thus allowing the banks to not write them off....this comes at the expense of those of us who save and have no debt. Also, gov't arms that guarantee loans take them over from the banks, thus depriving them of the loss, rebundle them taking a loss when they resell back to the banks, leaving the banks whole and the taxpayers suffering the loss.There are many more examples than this.

17
posted on 11/22/2012 11:48:09 AM PST
by Founding Father
(The Pedophile moHAMmudd (PBUH---Pigblood be upon him))

A. The government demanded they make “bad” loans to risky borrowers.
B. If the government hadn’t backed the banks, the banks might have failed. That could collapse the economy and probably has done so anyway. Lending has dried up for the most part.
C. Most of the banks were supported by federal insurance which would have wrecked the government. The whole federal banking system was designed to keep banks from being run out of business (i.e. the Depression)

18
posted on 11/22/2012 11:54:15 AM PST
by AppyPappy
(If you really want to annoy someone, point out something obvious that they are trying hard to ignore)

Ahh, the paulbot is strong in this one. Next you'll be talking about "globalists" and the Bilderberg Group.

These debt crisis aren't about fiat currency or evil bankers, its almost exclusively about people in democracies voting for a massive social welfare state. The banks and creditors are simply there to meet the borrowing needs. People want to massively deficit spend to pay for these things, and investors are always going to be around to meet the need. This isn't a banker problem, it's a voter problem.

This is little different than a person with a meth addiction. Are the drugs bad? Yes. Are the dealers bad? Yes. But who is ultimately responsible? The user. Blaming "banksters", fiat currency, globalists, etc, is just a convenient excuse - and a lot of that is just silly conspiracy theories.

It's poor form to begin making a point by name calling. At the least you should explain what you're calling me because I'm not familiar with the term, nor at any point refer to any of your quoted ("") terms. Also, I did not espouse any conspiracy theories.

Certainly those countries with massive social programs, voted upon or not, are in debt crisis in part for that reason. However, that is not what the article is about and my comments were not directed to that point. My focus is on the method upon which in the process described, and in the mortgage debt debacle of 2008 here, the lenders didn't suffer the losses they incurred because of government action to protect them. Who suffered the losses if not the bankers? It was us the taxpayers. I hope you will agree that this is not how a free market system works. I do not know or care if you are a taxpayer, but I am and it disturbs me that I am paying for shoddy lending practices, while the bankers using those shoddy practices remain whole (and of course the borrowers who did not repay their loans, in many cases escaped any negative ramifications too).

20
posted on 11/22/2012 12:08:52 PM PST
by Founding Father
(The Pedophile moHAMmudd (PBUH---Pigblood be upon him))

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.